DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on February 11, 2007, 02:45:28 AM
-
...that the administration has gone from 'Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons' to 'Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq', much the same way they went from 'Iraq has WMD's' to 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda'? Seems they are very good at coming up with new reasons to convince the American people we should go to war when the old reasons don't pan out.
I hope the American public, and their senators and representatives in Washington, have learned their lesson and set the bar for proof very high before deciding we should go to war in Iran.
-
...that the administration has gone from 'Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons' to 'Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq', much the same way they went from 'Iraq has WMD's' to 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda'? Seems they are very good at coming up with new reasons to convince the American people we should go to war when the old reasons don't pan out.
I hope the American public, and their senators and representatives in Washington, have learned their lesson and set the bar for proof very high before deciding we should go to war in Iran.
Has Iran quit enriching urainium?
Have they stopped testing new Naval wepons?
Is it untrue that the Iranians are provideing arms to death squads in Iraq?
Is all of the negative information comeing from the Bush administration?
Has the Bush administration ever lied to us? (no ...I am serious)
Has the Bush administation even once asked for a war with Iran?
-
...that the administration has gone from 'Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons' to 'Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq', much the same way they went from 'Iraq has WMD's' to 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda'?
Has anyone noticed they can do both??
-
Has the Bush administration ever lied to us? (no ...I am serious)
Has the Bush administation even once asked for a war with Iran?
==============================================
What best characterizes the Juniorbushies is that they have ALWAYS lied or put a major spin on every bloody thing they have said.
They will not ask for a war on Iran. They believe that the supposed authorization to make war on Iraq allows them to make war anywhere in the area. They have said so. They believe that they can simply attack Iran covertly and provoke a counterattack and. being as US troops are then in danger, attack overtly.
They are not to be trusted, ever, about anything.
-
Has the Bush administration ever lied to us? (no ...I am serious)
Has the Bush administation even once asked for a war with Iran?
==============================================
What best characterizes the Juniorbushies is that they have ALWAYS lied or put a major spin on every bloody thing they have said.
Oh? quote ONE...
Shuld be easy eh?
They will not ask for a war on Iran. They believe that the supposed authorization to make war on Iraq allows them to make war anywhere in the area. They have said so. They believe that they can simply attack Iran covertly and provoke a counterattack and. being as US troops are then in danger, attack overtly.
Why attack Iraq covertly ? Weare already finding them attacking us. This is only the truth that you are denying.
They are not to be trusted, ever, about anything.
So when President Bush does thigs you agree with are you totally katzenjammered?
-
<<Has anyone noticed they can do both??>>
I've noticed that the Bush administration sure as hell can LIE about both. Easily. Hands down.
BTW, in answer to plane's question from another thread, is the Bush administration asking for war on Iran, what does this look like?
<<New York Times
<<February 12, 2007
<<U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites
<<By JAMES GLANZ
<<BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence for the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war, and said those weapons had been used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.
<<Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor like butter. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.’s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.
<<In a news briefing held under strict security, those officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that senior Iranian leaders had authorized the smuggling of those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference.>>
There's lots more. Check it out - - the anonymous sources, the lack of evidence, the sudden front-paging of "news" that was known for at least a couple of years . . .
from the same paper that brought you Judith Miller and the first round of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq comes . . . wait for it folks! . . . Target Iran!! YAAAAY!! Another war you can't lose. They'll greet you with flowers! Get the purple dye ready, it's coming, folks! It's unstoppable. We're going to Teheran!!
-
<<Has anyone noticed they can do both??>>
I've noticed that the Bush administration sure as hell can LIE about both. Easily. Hands down.
So says Tee, at least.
More rational minds say things like: The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
The bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE". We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress.
Beyond that, intel agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."
In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.
Then there's Tee
-
<<Has anyone noticed they can do both??>>
I've noticed that the Bush administration sure as hell can LIE about both. Easily. Hands down.
BTW, in answer to plane's question from another thread, is the Bush administration asking for war on Iran, what does this look like?
<<New York Times
<<February 12, 2007
<<U.S. Says Arms Link Iranians to Iraqi Shiites
<<By JAMES GLANZ
<<BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — After weeks of internal debate, senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence for the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war, and said those weapons had been used to kill more than 170 Americans in the past three years.
<<Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor like butter. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.’s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.
<<In a news briefing held under strict security, those officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the officials said link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also asserted, without providing direct evidence, that senior Iranian leaders had authorized the smuggling of those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was an inference.>>
There's lots more. Check it out - - the anonymous sources, the lack of evidence, the sudden front-paging of "news" that was known for at least a couple of years . . .
from the same paper that brought you Judith Miller and the first round of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq comes . . . wait for it folks! . . . Target Iran!! YAAAAY!! Another war you can't lose. They'll greet you with flowers! Get the purple dye ready, it's coming, folks! It's unstoppable. We're going to Teheran!!
..." what does this look like?"
The truth.
-
<< "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.">>
And yet strangely enough, the UN Security Council was not persuaded to act. Russia wasn't persuaded. China wasn't persuaded. France and Germany weren't persuaded. Canada wasn't persuaded. Go figure.
<<The bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE". We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. >>
<<intel agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. >>
sirs knows this because they all report to him with their findings. Tell him things they won't even tell their own governments.
<<Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction." >>
"We have to assume . . . " Sure we do. HAVE TO assume. No choices here. If that's what the German ambassador says, that's what it has to be. Funny how even the "assumed" continued possession wasn't certain enough to push for invasion. BTW, was that ambassadorial quote BEFORE or AFTER Saddam had in fact given his accounting to the UN as demanded? (just askin)
LMFAO. Bipartisan. As if THAT were some guarantee of probity when BOTH parties approved the decision to go to war. Now they're white-wahing themselves with their own committee. Well, sirs still falls for it.
-
<< "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.">>
And yet strangely enough, the UN Security Council was not persuaded to act. Russia wasn't persuaded. China wasn't persuaded. France and Germany weren't persuaded. Go figure.
Yea, best figure on the lucrative $$$$ contracts they had, that would get really messed up, if they were to act.
<<The bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE". We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. >>
<<intel agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. >>
sirs knows this because they all report to him with their findings.
Actually, because they're been reported in various media sources
-
We know now more about Saddam giveing bribes to UN officicals, none of whom need to be punished at all.
-
<<Yea, best figure on the lucrative $$$$ contracts they had, that would get really messed up, if they were to act.>>
Sure. They figured Iraq would beat the U.S. and their contracts would be secure. Acting in alliance with the U.S. and adding their own forces into the mix would only mean ALL OF THEM would be soundly thrashed by mighty Iraq and all their contracts would be lost. BTW, since you are so proud of your FACTS that you like to CAPITALIZE the word, where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime. Honest to God, I never realized what a veritable United Nations the Iraqi oilpatch was, till I started reading your gar - - uh, I mean, posts.
<<Actually, because they're [all the intelligence agencies of all the other countries in the world] been reported in various media sources>>
Well, I don't know about you, sirs, but I find it downright heartening that all those intelligence agencies are so open and truthful that they publish their real findings in the world press. We hear so much talk about an "Open Society" but so few governments are willing to make any moves in that direction. Who would have suspected that it would be the intelligence agencies, usually so secretive and reclusive, who would lead the way to an Open Society? And I guess, since they've been so wonderfully open about it all, that you wouldn't have any trouble finding out where exactly all this formerly secret info has been published? It would be so helpful to those of us who want to clear the good name of "President" Bush of these awful and nasty allegations of lying and of cooking the books. Eeeewww, how could they?
-
where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime.
Been following the "oil for food" scandal, and attendant bribery cases, that have been wending their way through the various court systems?
-
where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime.
Been following the "oil for food" scandal, and attendant bribery cases, that have been wending their way through the various court systems?
OUCH, Ami with the 1st volley of facts. Tee's ship staggers, and turns hard about, but can it recover? (http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/rpg018.gif)
-
<<Been following the "oil for food" scandal, and attendant bribery cases, that have been wending their way through the various court systems?>>
THAT'S an answer? The question was, "where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime?" Want to try again?
-
THAT'S an answer? The question was, "where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime?" Want to try again?
They are laid in the various court cases, since the news reports that were posted here several years ago are apparently unpersuasive to you.
-
<<They are laid in the various court cases, since the news reports that were posted here several years ago are apparently unpersuasive to you.>>
Bullshit.
-
Bullshit.
No, fact.
But don't let that stop you.
-
<<No, fact.
<<But don't let that stop you.>>
Why on earth should it? It's not fact, it's bullshit and there's no reason in the world why I would stop calling bullshit bullshit. Always have and always will.
-
It's not fact, it's bullshit and there's no reason in the world why I would stop calling bullshit bullshit. Always have and always will.
Funny, I don't see you calling most of your own posts "bullshit."
-
It's not fact, it's bullshit and there's no reason in the world why I would stop calling bullshit bullshit. Always have and always will.
Funny, I don't see you calling most of your own posts "bullshit."
LOL :D
-
...that the administration has gone from 'Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons' to 'Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq', much the same way they went from 'Iraq has WMD's' to 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda'? Seems they are very good at coming up with new reasons to convince the American people we should go to war when the old reasons don't pan out.
I hope the American public, and their senators and representatives in Washington, have learned their lesson and set the bar for proof very high before deciding we should go to war in Iran.
Has Iran quit enriching urainium?
Have they stopped testing new Naval wepons?
Is it untrue that the Iranians are provideing arms to death squads in Iraq?
Is all of the negative information comeing from the Bush administration?
Has the Bush administration ever lied to us? (no ...I am serious)
Has the Bush administation even once asked for a war with Iran?
Yes the U.S. did ask for a war with Iran. The U.S. paid Saddam and the Iraq Army to fight that war.
The U.S. double dealing in the Middle East is directly related to the war Bush started with Iraq. Its an epic story, The chapter of George W. Bush is now being written.
-
[qte]Yes the U.S. did ask for a war with Iran. The U.S. paid Saddam and the Iraq Army to fight that war.
[/quote]
But that was earlyer than this administration , which is not asking for an invasion of Iran.
-
where are the FACTS that show us the "lucrative $$$$ contracts" the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Russians, Belgians and Canadians all had with Saddam's regime. Honest to God, I never realized what a veritable United Nations the Iraqi oilpatch was, till I started reading your gar - - uh, I mean, posts.
A) I never referenced ALL countries as involved. B) If you had noticed, which your ignorance appears to inhibit you from doing, I highlighted 2 of them, France & Russia, both members of the UN Security Council, both with veto power, only 1 required to torpedo any such resolution that could be pending before the council
What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein? France and Russia. What countries got the most kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal? France and Russia.
Knowing your affinity for books, as an be all in supposedly proving Bush manipulatied intel, Bill Gertz, defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times, in his book "Treachery" has these juicy excerpts.
- New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq. The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002
- French aid to Iraq goes back decades and includes transfers of advanced conventional arms and components for weapons of mass destruction.
The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as prime minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris. By 2000, France had become Iraq's largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified. Saddam developed networks for illegal supplies to get around the U.N. arms embargo and achieve a military buildup in the years before U.S. forces launched a second assault on Iraq.
- As of 2003, Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates.
- In mid-March 2003, U.S. intelligence and defense officials confirmed that exporters in France had conspired with China to provide Iraq with chemicals used in making solid fuel for long-range missiles. The sanctions-busting operation occurred in August 2002, the U.S. National Security Agency discovered through electronic intercepts.
Gertz also goes on to say in an interview given in Oct '04, that "Multipolarity is this idea that you need to have several centers of power in the world, and the fact of the matter is we are it. We're the only superpower in the world today, and they don't like that, and they're (that being France, Russia, and a host of other predominat countries) working against us, and the reason that they're working against us -- that often translates into supporting our enemies, including with arms transfers, ... and it doesn't matter who's right or wrong to the multipolarity view. It's just the point is that stability requires that there be many centers of power."
- Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, 6/21/06; "I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks of weapons of mass destruction out of Baghdad and Iraq in the fall of 2002. We've all heard what General Sada, the Iraqi defector said. He said that they went into three locations in Syria and one location in the Bekaa Valley, and if you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to China and France & Russia." Those weapons were there and they were moved out by the Russians and by the French, by the Chinese, primarily the Russians providing most of the actual manpower and equipment to do it
- China, France & Russia -- learning this from the oil-for-food program investigation -- were all engaged in selling large stockpiles of conventional weapons to Saddam
This is just a tip of googling. And Tee wonders why they didn't act. Good gravy
<<Actually, because they're [all the intelligence agencies of all the other countries in the world] been reported in various media sources>>
Well, I don't know about you, sirs, but I find it downright heartening that all those intelligence agencies are so open and truthful that they publish their real findings in the world press.
Poor sarcasm to boot, but I was wondering how long this tactic would take to manifest itself. usually it's a ploy in implying that a lack of evidence or lack of reporting criminal acts actually validates such acts (when of course it's about the U.S. or Israel), but here, it's the overt effort to claim how since the intelligence agencies don't really tell us everything (which would then place pretty much all their undercover and intel gathering resources at risk, or worse), then what they have told us (Saddam did still posses his WMD stockpiles) can't really be accepted, since they haven't told us everything.
I realize how you'd love to see American & coalition undercover folks burned alive by Intel agencies devulging everything they know, but personally, I have no problem with them giving us what they do know, and the President everything they know, while still protecting their assets (translated = American & Coalition lives)
-
What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein? France and Russia. What countries got the most kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal? France and Russia.
Actually, France and Germany got the most. Regardless, several countries with veto powers in the UN have been involved.
Here's an article from before the war (with complete attributions for all the pertinent facts at the bottom):
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power (http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm)
Most of these were brought up in this forum at the time.
-
What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein? France and Russia. What countries got the most kickbacks from the oil-for-food scandal? France and Russia.
Actually, France and Germany got the most. Regardless, several countries with veto powers in the UN have been involved. Here's an article from before the war (with complete attributions for all the pertinent facts at the bottom). Most of these were brought up in this forum at the time.
Ahhh, thanks for the heads-up, Ami. Of course these facts aren't really facts, right Tee? I'm sure Tee can rationalize all this nicely, in order to maintain the template of how Bush is evil, American military is evil, & UN a noble organization
-
Interesting how this scandal makes the entire UN a corrupt organisation, yet the administration relied heavily on UN resolutions to go to war.
The UN has problems for sure, but they are not beyond redemption. They remain a great vestige of hope for the collective wisdom of the body of the world's nations.
-
<<Funny, I don't see you calling most of your own posts "bullshit.">>
That's because they're not. I called YOUR answer to my challenge "bullshit" because that's exactly what it was. And it's still bullshit. So's your attempt to change the subject, BTW.
-
<<Of course these facts aren't really facts, right Tee?>>
No, they're facts, but they're not the whole story. They're cherry-picked to deliberately mislead. The issue is the justification for the war on Iraq. Iraq may have been arming itself. In retrospect, that seems like a wise decision. The better armed a nation is, the better able to fight off U.S. aggression. Arming oneself in a world dominated by one superpower dedicated to imposing its will on the entire planet is not a crime.
France armed Iraq. The article claims Russia and China armed Iraq. The article claims India armed Iraq. Ami claims Germany armed Iraq. The technique of the lie and the half-truth is perfectly illustrated in these accounts. I haven't had the time to read the link that Ami posted (thank you. Ami) but what I expect ot find is this: exquisite detail about the French contracts, amounts, etc. For the others, little more than bald statements that they also provided weapons or raw materials, no dollar amounts provided, or no comparisons with the dollar amounts provided by the U.S.A.; no indication if the providers were legitimate businesses legally operating or criminal operations flying under the radar of their government's boycott-enforcement personnel (this is important because it couldn't possibly explain a governmental refusal to back the American position if the weapons providers were criminals)
The right-wing fascists and militarists who now control the U.S. government specialize in this kind of BS. Facts but not all the facts. Bullshit that attempts to prove what common sense knows could not possibly be true: that Iraq was not and never could be a threat to the U.S. That Saddam, who backed off from every military confrontation with the U.S. would have attacked it with WMD, guaranteeing his own and his country's anihilation. Iraq was getting weapons. So fucking what? Every fucking country in that region and around the world not in favour with the U.S. wants to have powerful weapons. NEEDS to have powerful weapons. Israel has hundreds of nukes and operates completely outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan and India have nukes. Whatever your book proves, it does not and cannot provide a valid reason justifying the flagrant breach of the U.N. Charter that was the invasion of Iraq.
-
I haven't had the time to read the link that Ami posted (thank you. Ami) but what I expect ot find is this: exquisite detail about the French contracts, amounts, etc. For the others, little more than bald statements that they also provided weapons or raw materials, no dollar amounts provided, or no comparisons with the dollar amounts provided by the U.S.A.; no indication if the providers were legitimate businesses legally operating or criminal operations flying under the radar of their government's boycott-enforcement personnel (this is important because it couldn't possibly explain a governmental refusal to back the American position if the weapons providers were criminals)
And you're wrong, yet again.
-
<<Of course these facts aren't really facts, right Tee?>>
No, they're facts, but they're not the whole story.
Well, we did get a small victory there
The issue is the justification for the war on Iraq
No, actually, this is specific to how certain folks in on the UN Security council, with absolute veto power, could easily be seen as why they impeded any attempt thru the UN to bring Iraq into full compliance, and in reality, had a vested (read; $$$$ interest) for the status quo to remain. THAT was the issue in your latest query, regarding the UN and their failure to act in any way, shape or form
-
<<Of course these facts aren't really facts, right Tee? >>
They might be facts, but even if they are, it is EXACTLY as I suspected - - meaningless factoids, with nothing to compare them to, to give any meaning or significance. Only a moron would conclude, on the basis of the facts as stated, that economic interests would persuade even France to take the positions they did regarding a proposed American motion in the Security Council.
I am referring to Ami's article, to which he was kind enough to post the link. I'm sure that sirs' book is just another crock of the same shit, but let's look at Ami's "source," which like most of his other garbage turns out to be the same misbegotten collection of factoids and half-truths proving absolutely nothing. Actually, the stupidity of quoting this article in support of their moronic positions is hilarious, because it actually shows you in some detail why America would want to invade this country.
First of all, if you read between the lines of the article, you see that the country with the biggest economic motive to invade the fucking country is the U.S.A. - - America not only relies on Iraq for $3.5 BILLION worth of its oil in one single year, 2002, but has to buy the stuff through middlemen, which obviously would cost substantially more. France, by contrast, bought $3.1 billion SINCE 1996 under the oil-for-food program. As a consumer of Iraqi oil, France is a piker compared to the U.S.A.
Germany, another country which these geniuses claim votes only its "economic self-interest" at the Security Council when Iraq is concerned, does a lordly "350 million" business annually with Iraq. Plus a "reported" billion through third parties, as meaningless an estimate as could be imagined in the circumstances. Germany is the second largest exporting nation in the world - - $350 million would represent a piss in the ocean as far as their overall balance of trade is concerned.
The foreign debt figures were equally hilarious - - while Iraq owes France an "estimated" $6 billion in foreign debt, and Germany "billions" [that's it - - "billions;" $2 billion or $999 billion, that's for YOU to figure out,] there are absolutely no figures at all regarding the foreign debt owed to the U.S. by Iraq.
The rest of the article is just a frantically-compiled mish-mash of the News from Nowhere - - a $2 million contract for cable here, a $70 million contract for auto parts there - - stuff that naturally has absolutely zero in terms of meaningful economic significance - - what percent of France's, Germany's or Russia's foreign trade is represented by Iraq, how do all the numbers compare with the U.S.A. and what of the other countries that also, like France, Germany, Russia and China, refused to back the U.S.A., what were their trade figures?
In addition, none of this explains how come India, Canada, Belgium and scores of other countries, some big and some small, also felt that there was no need to invade Iraq despite the bullshit and lies of the Bush administration.
At the end of the day, the article succeeded in convincing me that all the countries named did business with Iraq in one form or another, for greater or lesser amounts, and that of all of them, the U.S. seemed to have the greatest economic incentive to invade Iraq since it not only bought by far the biggest amounts of oil from them but also was forced to buy through middlemen, which would substantially have increased the price - - an inconvenience which could be solved neatly by taking over the wells directly and reaping enormous benefits not only through the elimination of the middleman but also by being able to dictate the price of the product directly to the Iraqi "government" at the point of a gun.
-
France, by contrast, bought $3.1 billion SINCE 1996 under the oil-for-food program. As a consumer of Iraqi oil, France is a piker compared to the U.S.A.
Of course, completely glossing over the worth of the contract in the future after sanctions would have been eliminated - $650billion based on 2002 oil prices (triple it for current prices). Control by a French corporation of 25% of one of the largest oil fields in the world is something for the French government to be interested in preserving.
Ditto for a few of your other points.
Like I said, you ignore anything that contradicts you.
-
<<Of course, completely glossing over the worth of the contract in the future after sanctions would have been eliminated - $650billion based on 2002 oil prices (triple it for current prices). Control by a French corporation of 25% of one of the largest oil fields in the world is something for the French government to be interested in preserving.>>
Using your "logic" every contract in every country has to be multiplied by the same factor to go from 2002 prices to today's prices. If it were such a big deal to the French government, I'm sure they'd hedge their bets in some way either by selling off part of ELF to the U.S.A. or more specifically to the Bush administration's special friends in the business and/or by finding some way to be more accommodating to the U.S.A. which showed at least some potential for following through on its threats.
France was actually the strongest part of the article claiming economic self-interest as motive, and even there France's economic self-interest paled beside that of the U.S.A. The rest of it was pathetic. With of course zero data by which any meaningful evaluation of the data presented could have been performed. ("$650 million? Uh geeze that seems like lots and lots of money. . . . is it more than a gazillion?")
As usual, your "evidence" turns out to be a crock of shit. I'm sure though that you 'll complain about my "arrogance" in rejecting it. Find another sucker if you hope to persuade anyone with this garbage. Which I note was published in the Washington Times, the Moonie paper - - or was that the book excerpt that sirs was referring to? My apologies to one of you. Know what GiGo stands for? Garbage in, garbage out.
-
France, by contrast, bought $3.1 billion SINCE 1996 under the oil-for-food program. As a consumer of Iraqi oil, France is a piker compared to the U.S.A.
Of course, completely glossing over the worth of the contract in the future after sanctions would have been eliminated - $650billion based on 2002 oil prices (triple it for current prices). Control by a French corporation of 25% of one of the largest oil fields in the world is something for the French government to be interested in preserving. Ditto for a few of your other points.
D'OH....Ami with another blow. Tee's ship listing hard to port
-
...that the administration has gone from 'Iran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons' to 'Iran is supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq', much the same way they went from 'Iraq has WMD's' to 'Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda'? Seems they are very good at coming up with new reasons to convince the American people we should go to war when the old reasons don't pan out.
I hope the American public, and their senators and representatives in Washington, have learned their lesson and set the bar for proof very high before deciding we should go to war in Iran.
Not only that, they do it with leaks now so they can claim they aren't saying anything like that. Much the same way they are now blaming the Intel community for their f'up in invading Iraq. They're goals are to do what they want and not get any of the blame.
-
Yup, ignore anything that contradicts you.
-
<<Yup, ignore anything that contradicts you.>>
Ignore? I ripped it to shreds.
-
<<Of course, completely glossing over the worth of the contract in the future after sanctions would have been eliminated - $650billion based on 2002 oil prices (triple it for current prices). Control by a French corporation of 25% of one of the largest oil fields in the world is something for the French government to be interested in preserving.>>
Using your "logic" every contract in every country has to be multiplied by the same factor to go from 2002 prices to today's prices. If it were such a big deal to the French government, I'm sure they'd hedge their bets in some way either by selling off part of ELF to the U.S.A. or more specifically to the Bush administration's special friends in the business and/or by finding some way to be more accommodating to the U.S.A. which showed at least some potential for following through on its threats.
France was actually the strongest part of the article claiming economic self-interest as motive, and even there France's economic self-interest paled beside that of the U.S.A. The rest of it was pathetic. With of course zero data by which any meaningful evaluation of the data presented could have been performed. ("$650 million? Uh geeze that seems like lots and lots of money. . . . is it more than a gazillion?")
As usual, your "evidence" turns out to be a crock of shit. I'm sure though that you 'll complain about my "arrogance" in rejecting it. Find another sucker if you hope to persuade anyone with this garbage. Which I note was published in the Washington Times, the Moonie paper - - or was that the book excerpt that sirs was referring to? My apologies to one of you. Know what GiGo stands for? Garbage in, garbage out.
Why then is it safe to assume the same for US motives that are unproven as you refuse to beleive of French motives in which you demand stronger evidence?
-
Why then is it safe to assume the same for US motives that are unproven as you refuse to beleive of French motives in which you demand stronger evidence?
Template Plane, template
-
<<Why then is it safe to assume the same for US motives that are unproven as you refuse to beleive of French motives in which you demand stronger evidence?>>
Actually, I said that France was the strongest part of his argument. Maybe they did let the business side influence their UN vote. It needs more proof but I didn't say it was impossible.
With the USA, you have a number of things that don't add up. The elephant claims to be afraid of the mouse. Well when the elephant is a nation of 300,000,000 with the mightiest nuclear arsenal in history and the mouse is a nation of 23,000,000 with an army that already once had its ass kicked by the U.S.A. and a leader that never risked confrontation before with the U.S., it's just what it looks like - - a bullshit excuse. When the invasion PROVES that there was nothing to fear, new reasons are found for staying: "bring democracy," and now when that also has been exploded, "preventing a bloodbath" (THAT from the same country that killed 2 million Vietnamese, very bloodbath-sensitive people)
I mean the endless parade of bullshit reasons, ever changing as each one is exposed for the lie that it is, plus the OBVIOUS and historically validated perfectly good single reason to invade Iraq - - holy shit, plane, what more do you want?
-
Ignore? I ripped it to shreds.
ROFLMAO
You only "ripped it to shreds" because you basically said it wasn't any proof.
I didn't see you contradict any of the numbers, much less provide any evidence that the numbers were wrong.
-
<<You only "ripped it to shreds" because you basically said it wasn't any proof.
<<I didn't see you contradict any of the numbers, much less provide any evidence that the numbers were wrong.>>
I don't have to say the numbers were wrong, you never gave enough to form a conclusion either way. It's like announcing the score of the Army-Navy game as "Army 5."
-
..........a leader that never risked confrontation before with the U.S.......
<<
Hahahaha
Mother of all battles Saddam , are we talking about the same guy?
I think your position depends on the assumption of good sense on Saddams part.
-
I don't have to say the numbers were wrong, you never gave enough to form a conclusion either way. It's like announcing the score of the Army-Navy game as "Army 5."
My point was that other governments had companies with significant financial ties to Saddam's government. Hundreds of billions of dollars is significant in anybody's book - except yours, apparently. I made my point. Your "ripping it to shreds" apparently consisted of saying that US did business with them as well. A point that I never contradicted.
-
Hahahaha
Mother of all battles Saddam , are we talking about the same guy?
I think your position depends on the assumption of good sense on Saddams part.
<<Mother of all battles Saddam>> was his phrase from the First Gulf War - - note that he pulled his troops from Kuwait rather than fight the Americans there and fought only defensively agaisnt them for a brief period of time. One of the biggest slaughters of Iraqi troops in that war came when they were in retreat from the U.S. army. He basically preserved his armed forces and did not risk them in combat.
-
<<My point was that other governments had companies with significant financial ties to Saddam's government. Hundreds of billions of dollars is significant in anybody's book - except yours, apparently. I made my point. Your "ripping it to shreds" apparently consisted of saying that US did business with them as well. A point that I never contradicted.>>
Actually, I conceded that you might have had a point with respect to France. Of course, it's always risky business to evaluate a new oil venture in terms of the expected profits. Many a slip, etc. And it would have been helpful to see how ELF valued its other deals in other parts of the world. This might not have been close to the biggest jewel in the crown. Most of the other examples given were totally unconvincing and I said so. They were basically small change.
-
<<My point was that other governments had companies with significant financial ties to Saddam's government. Hundreds of billions of dollars is significant in anybody's book - except yours, apparently. I made my point. Your "ripping it to shreds" apparently consisted of saying that US did business with them as well. A point that I never contradicted.>>
Actually, I conceded that you might have had a point with respect to France. Of course, it's always risky business to evaluate a new oil venture in terms of the expected profits. Many a slip, etc. And it would have been helpful to see how ELF valued its other deals in other parts of the world. This might not have been close to the biggest jewel in the crown. Most of the other examples given were totally unconvincing and I said so. They were basically small change.
I agree that the oil involved is not worth enough to cause a war.
-
<<I agree that the oil involved is not worth enough to cause a war.>>
Neat trick. You're agreeing with something I never said. (What is the sound of one hand clapping?)
What I said was that the amount of oil involved in France's ELF-Iraq deal might not have been enough to influence France's voting intentions on the Security Council.
-
What I said was that the amount of oil involved in France's ELF-Iraq deal might not have been enough to influence France's voting intentions on the Security Council.
Control of 25% of Iraq's oil is not enough?
How much would be enough?
-
<<Control of 25% of Iraq's oil is not enough?>>
That's 25% of all the oil in Iraq IF it lives up to predictions. Time will tell what percent it would have been. If I had a 25% stake and the U.S. was about to invade, I would have covered my bets. A U.N. Security Council vote would have satisfied the U.S.A. and as long as I knew Germany, Russia and China were voting against, it would not have jeopardized my deal with Saddam one bit. My deal with Saddam would have been to vote against the U.S. only if the other veto powers had been suckered into the U.S. orbit. Having said all that, I would add that it is possible there's enough oil there for the French to vote in the U.N. Security Council to protect their economic interests. That still wouldn't mean they bought into any of Bush's bullshit. They could protect their own interests AND still recognize BS for what it is.
-
That's 25% of all the oil in Iraq IF it lives up to predictions. Time will tell what percent it would have been.
Those were "proven reserves."
Incidently, they are still currently undeveloped.